KARAN SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who appears in person has come up in the appeal against judgment dated 15.03.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No.7662 of 2015 of Delhi High Court by which judgment Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition of Delhi Transport Corporation by setting aside the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal has directed the Delhi Transport Corporation to pay the appellant pension and other benefits in accordance with the Pension Scheme issued by the DTC vide their Office Order dated 27.11.1992 read with VRS, 1993.

(2.) By Memo dated 09.01983, the appellant was directed to report T.S. Training School, IPD for training on 10.01983 for the post of Retainer Crew or Conductor. The appellant underwent training from 15.03.1983 to 26.05.1983. The appellant was offered appointment by order dated 24.05.1983 after qualifying the written test held on 13.05.1983 for the post of Conductor with effect from 27.05.1983. The appointment letter dated 25.05.1983 was issued appointing the appellant as Retainer Crew with effect from 27.05.1983. On 27.11.1983 he was given regular appointment as monthly rate Conductor w.e.f. 27.11.1983. The Delhi Transport Corporation floated voluntary retirement scheme by circular dated 03.03.1993. Those employees who had 10 years of service and 40 years of age were entitled to opt for voluntary retirement. The appellant submitted his application for voluntary retirement which was allowed by letter dated 30.04.1993. The appellant was made various payments as per scheme but no order for pension was passed.

(3.) A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to make payment of pension. The writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and was allowed by order dated 09.08.2011 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the respondent having accepted voluntary retirement of the appellant on the ground that he has completed 10 years of service, now, this is too late to say for the Corporation not to make payment of pension on the ground that he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service. Against the order of the Tribunal a writ petition was filed in the High Court by the Corporation. The writ petition was allowed by the Delhi High Court by judgment and order dated 29.05.201 The High Court held that if the service of the appellant is reckoned from 27.05.1983 and the period of 98 days on which he was on leave without pay, total period of service comes to 9 years, 7 months and 8 days which does not qualify for pension. Review application was filed by the appellant praying for adding period from 15.01983 to 26.05.1983 under which he had undergone for training. Review Application was rejected that since no such plea was raised before the Tribunal the same cannot be considered. After rejection of the review, appellant again requested the DTC to re-appreciate the qualifying service and reconsider for grant of pension. In the application apart from requesting for adding training period, he also claimed that he was not paid employee's share of the contribution to Provident Fund, putting a cross against the said claim clearly meant that Corporation itself was considering the case of the appellant as a pension case. He further stated that similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of pension.